I believe that the death penalty is a reasonable punishment in the case of murder because in my opinion the scum of the earth need to be abolished. America needs to set an example for criminals that we will not tolerate evil and unjustifiable crimes

I entirely disagree with the death penalty both on moral reasons as well as on industrial reasons. Even the worst criminals may be reformed into productive members of society if the proper techniques in re-education and propaganda are applied. By killing the criminal we are assuming an authority reserved to God, in my religious opinion, and we are assuming he or she is undeserving to live any longer, which I see as wrongly judgmental. Just as well, the 'criminal' may be found to be innocent.

Indeed they do deserve death for murder, but, as the Bible also states, if one even gives in to the thought of murder, in the heart it has already been committed, and that is where it counts in relation to Christianity, so therefore, almost all people deserve to die. But this is something we are not punished with by God directly. Why? Mercy. God has the mercy to forgive again and again and to toil and work on reforming the individual. Should we not also exercise mercy and do the same?

Yes we should have mercy for people for making mistakes. But in my opinion, murder is to much of a heinous crime, to be forgiven for. And besides, when did this become a debate about the Bible. Although I am christian this is a debate about crime not god

Well, its hard not to mention religion on this issue, especially between two believers. My secular basis is this: Death is not a proper punishment for murder because, essentially, it is a waste of resources. So long as it is possible to reform people and put them to useful and productive work, we should attempt to do so. Dont kill them, and dont lock them away for life. I believe all criminals should work off their debt, doing actual work for the betterment of the community and the nation.

I never attempted to make the argument that the Bible opposes the death penalty. I am a Catholic and I view the Bible, as we know it, with MUCH skepticism. Its the Protestants with their 'Sola Scriptura' and 'Sola Fide' nonsense that leads to 'literal interpretation', and thats why many fundamentalist protestants are beer-drinking, meat-eating, supporters of the death penalty. Oh, its such an unhealthy worldview, and I could have argued my point much better if I had been given more than 500 characters per round. And I would like to start a thread on this, its one of my favourite issues. Ah, I remember arguing the same side in my 9th grade sociology class. I won over ten people, about half the class, and was about to make some excellent points, but then the bell rang. On another note, I am new here, so go 'easy' on me, if you will. Thanks and its great to be here, peace!

Reasons for voting decision: Having previously debated with lifesaglitch911, I'm assuming he set a character limit. I managed to refute his arguments, and make two arguments with a 500 character limit. This is just... a terrible debate. Wow. I thought I'd give Con 3 points. I can't.

Reasons for voting decision: It's hard to give any point an argument, since both side continued to give opinions and personal beliefs. But, since Con's arguments, which if formulated and elaborated--would be better, were not addressed by Pro (ex. Con argues about rehabilitation but Pro responds with an indirect response of an 'eye for an 'eye' policy) and since Pro never fulfilled his BOP, the vote for arguments goes to Con...